The future of one-day cricket September 1, 2009

Which way should one-day cricket go?

I'd start with not reducing overs, but matches. What one-day cricket lacks the most at the moment is meaning and context. That's the subject for a bigger piece
62

Most interesting. We are currently running a poll seeking your opinion on the future of one-day cricket, and on last count, more than 62% of you think it should be left as it is.

The other options were:

It should be fixed at 40 overs a side 40 overs and two innings And played less frequently

The ECB has decided where it stands and scrapped the 50-over game at the domestic level. The English have traditionally been the forerunners for change, however, only 18% of you seem to favour the 40-over format which the board has adopted.

The 50-over format, will of course, be around till the expiry of the ICC television rights in 2015. But who knows how the game would have changed by then?

As for me, I'd start with not reducing overs, but matches. What one-day cricket lacks the most at the moment is meaning and context. That's the subject for a bigger piece.

Sambit Bal is the editor of ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Shah on December 29, 2009, 12:47 GMT

    I read an interesting idea on HoldingWilley.com, the bigger piece that you refer to in the last line of your entry. It suggests that every ODI match be turned into a World Cup qualifier, and the number of teams in the World Cup be reduced.

  • Sameer Singh on December 15, 2009, 8:38 GMT

    The twenty20 WC should be played once in four years and should be played in new venues(like in Ireland,Holland,Kenya,USA etc something like FIFA WC in USA 94, Japan 02, and now in South Africa) this would help to introduce cricket in new areas and would arouse interest among the locals of non cricket playing nations which in future might benefit the ODIs .In ICC WORLD TWENTY20 the unpredictable winner makes it more interesting whereas in 50 over WORLDCUP we see only the Aussies dominating the game.I think something like WORLD CUP qualifiers and some friendlies among the nations in continents for both the formats should be introduced rather than playing for meaningless trophies which is forgotten after some months. And yes there should be no meaningless second rounds which rather should be replaced by knockout stages in the World Cup.

  • Sameer Singh on December 15, 2009, 8:14 GMT

    Few years ago people loved ODIs but after the commencement of twenty20 people feel it boring and after some years they would feel twenty20 boring, then what should ten10 and then five5 be introduced. This would make cricket meaningless. I personally think that all the three formats are here to stay.Its just that there is the overdose of meaningless ODIs.I think the ICC are using ODIs to kill the bowlers by making wickets batsmen friendly. They can do certain changes in ODIs like the batting powerplays should be taken between 20-40 overs only.They should make the contest between bat and bowl even by playing ODIs in lively wickets (i.e the way ODIs were played during the 90s).In cricket WorldCup there are only 14 nations playing unlike the way the FIFA WORLDCUP which has 32 nations.So in cricket we see the contest between only 8 good cricket playing nations which is poor on ICC which boasts that cricket has completed a century.I think they should introduce WC qualifiers from continents.

  • Lt Col (Retd) Sandeep Pandit on October 7, 2009, 5:32 GMT

    I personally think that all this brouhaha over the survival of 50-over matches is meaningless. What has changed since the first ODI was played? Nothing, except that it was reduced to 50 overs from 60 overs and a couple of power plays were introduced to stretch the field restrictions to 20 overs. Otherwise, the game has remained basically the same. It is only perception that is leading to the outcry. Since the introduction of T20, people have started "perceiving" the 50-over game as slow. When ODIs were introduced, everybody predicted the death of Tests. But Test cricket is still alive and kicking, and kicking hard. Same will be the case with ODIs. I agree with Mr Bal. The only change that is needed is to reduce the number of ODIs. Probably we have had a overdose of ODIs. ICC will do well to ensure that every tour has an equal number of matches of all the three formats. Suggestion - 3 Tests, 3 ODIs, 3 T20s. This will ensure that interest is kept alive for all 3 formats.

  • Max on October 2, 2009, 6:06 GMT

    Bowling inovations need to be introduced to ODI to give a fairer contest. Allow 2 bowlers to bowl 15 overs each. Perhaps also require 5 bowlers to bowl at least 5 overs each.

    Batting powerplays should not be allowed to be taken after the 40th over.

    Easing of the leg side wide rule.

  • john on September 29, 2009, 0:47 GMT

    I think there is confusion when the idea of 2 innings of 25 overs is advocated. Please specifiy whether you prefer each team play two 25 overs innings for 10 wickets each innings(20 wickets total per team) or whether you are advocating two 25 overs "segments" for 10 wickets total accross both segments for each team. I like the idea of the latter suggestion. Each side takes turns batting overs 1-25 in the "first half" then each side takes turns batting overs 26-50 in the "second half" for 10 wickets across the 50 overs for each side. The not out batsmen after the 25th over would resume on the 26th over in the "second half". A domestic tournament should trial before being attempted at the international level.

  • Simon on September 26, 2009, 20:52 GMT

    I've been to a couple Champions Trophy Games this week and it's been fun. The attendance is not great, but that's more because of the ICC's woeful marketing efforts here in SA. Most people don't even know the games are on!

    However, regarding the format the day nights are very unfair, especially in Johannesburg. If you are bowling at night, there is much more swing and its unfair.

    Everyone I've spoken to agreed that it was nice to have a day long game (20/20 can feel a little trivial), but were in favour of Tendulkar's idea of 2 innings of 25 overs. That would even it out nicely and be more exciting.

  • Umesh on September 24, 2009, 11:42 GMT

    Cricket is not a car or some other kind of property that can be modified, Cricket is a sport. A sport that we all love. A true cricket fan will not watch just one format we watch all three of them because we love cricket. By watching all the three formats of the game we have different reasons to cheer about and watch different cricketers perform at those levels. I think the ICC should not even think about changing the ODI format because according to me its the most fun to watch format and you get to see players display their skills in limited time (T20 is too short). ODI's are the best.... Cricket is best... Lets not forget why we watch cricket....

  • Suffyan on September 23, 2009, 15:32 GMT

    FOR one-day cricket:

    I think it's expiry date has gone now. It's way too long and boring. A change is what needed. All other sports are more interesting and fun and easy to watch, is because of short time. The only format that can make Cricket global and at the same time very challenging and entertaining is Twenty20 !

    Frankly speaking who has time to sit whole day in front of TV, watching a 50 over game, which only entertains you in first 15 overs and last 5 overs, and you can easily predict who is going to win or loose before the actual finish !

  • NICK on September 23, 2009, 5:10 GMT

    Suggestions for changes to 50 over cricket:

    1. Permanent field restrictions. No powerplays. Maximum of three outfielders for the entire innings.

    2. Remove ten over limit on overs per bowler. Any player may bowl as many overs as required.

    3. As in warm-up matches for major tournaments, have 13 players per side (11 fielding, 11 batting). Forget the supersub idea. This works so much better.

    4. Relegate England. Just kidding. Or am I?

    Make 50 over cricket a different kind of game. The teams in 20 over cricket should end up containing a vastly different set of players than in ODI or test cricket. Let's make T20 the all-rounder's game.

  • Shah on December 29, 2009, 12:47 GMT

    I read an interesting idea on HoldingWilley.com, the bigger piece that you refer to in the last line of your entry. It suggests that every ODI match be turned into a World Cup qualifier, and the number of teams in the World Cup be reduced.

  • Sameer Singh on December 15, 2009, 8:38 GMT

    The twenty20 WC should be played once in four years and should be played in new venues(like in Ireland,Holland,Kenya,USA etc something like FIFA WC in USA 94, Japan 02, and now in South Africa) this would help to introduce cricket in new areas and would arouse interest among the locals of non cricket playing nations which in future might benefit the ODIs .In ICC WORLD TWENTY20 the unpredictable winner makes it more interesting whereas in 50 over WORLDCUP we see only the Aussies dominating the game.I think something like WORLD CUP qualifiers and some friendlies among the nations in continents for both the formats should be introduced rather than playing for meaningless trophies which is forgotten after some months. And yes there should be no meaningless second rounds which rather should be replaced by knockout stages in the World Cup.

  • Sameer Singh on December 15, 2009, 8:14 GMT

    Few years ago people loved ODIs but after the commencement of twenty20 people feel it boring and after some years they would feel twenty20 boring, then what should ten10 and then five5 be introduced. This would make cricket meaningless. I personally think that all the three formats are here to stay.Its just that there is the overdose of meaningless ODIs.I think the ICC are using ODIs to kill the bowlers by making wickets batsmen friendly. They can do certain changes in ODIs like the batting powerplays should be taken between 20-40 overs only.They should make the contest between bat and bowl even by playing ODIs in lively wickets (i.e the way ODIs were played during the 90s).In cricket WorldCup there are only 14 nations playing unlike the way the FIFA WORLDCUP which has 32 nations.So in cricket we see the contest between only 8 good cricket playing nations which is poor on ICC which boasts that cricket has completed a century.I think they should introduce WC qualifiers from continents.

  • Lt Col (Retd) Sandeep Pandit on October 7, 2009, 5:32 GMT

    I personally think that all this brouhaha over the survival of 50-over matches is meaningless. What has changed since the first ODI was played? Nothing, except that it was reduced to 50 overs from 60 overs and a couple of power plays were introduced to stretch the field restrictions to 20 overs. Otherwise, the game has remained basically the same. It is only perception that is leading to the outcry. Since the introduction of T20, people have started "perceiving" the 50-over game as slow. When ODIs were introduced, everybody predicted the death of Tests. But Test cricket is still alive and kicking, and kicking hard. Same will be the case with ODIs. I agree with Mr Bal. The only change that is needed is to reduce the number of ODIs. Probably we have had a overdose of ODIs. ICC will do well to ensure that every tour has an equal number of matches of all the three formats. Suggestion - 3 Tests, 3 ODIs, 3 T20s. This will ensure that interest is kept alive for all 3 formats.

  • Max on October 2, 2009, 6:06 GMT

    Bowling inovations need to be introduced to ODI to give a fairer contest. Allow 2 bowlers to bowl 15 overs each. Perhaps also require 5 bowlers to bowl at least 5 overs each.

    Batting powerplays should not be allowed to be taken after the 40th over.

    Easing of the leg side wide rule.

  • john on September 29, 2009, 0:47 GMT

    I think there is confusion when the idea of 2 innings of 25 overs is advocated. Please specifiy whether you prefer each team play two 25 overs innings for 10 wickets each innings(20 wickets total per team) or whether you are advocating two 25 overs "segments" for 10 wickets total accross both segments for each team. I like the idea of the latter suggestion. Each side takes turns batting overs 1-25 in the "first half" then each side takes turns batting overs 26-50 in the "second half" for 10 wickets across the 50 overs for each side. The not out batsmen after the 25th over would resume on the 26th over in the "second half". A domestic tournament should trial before being attempted at the international level.

  • Simon on September 26, 2009, 20:52 GMT

    I've been to a couple Champions Trophy Games this week and it's been fun. The attendance is not great, but that's more because of the ICC's woeful marketing efforts here in SA. Most people don't even know the games are on!

    However, regarding the format the day nights are very unfair, especially in Johannesburg. If you are bowling at night, there is much more swing and its unfair.

    Everyone I've spoken to agreed that it was nice to have a day long game (20/20 can feel a little trivial), but were in favour of Tendulkar's idea of 2 innings of 25 overs. That would even it out nicely and be more exciting.

  • Umesh on September 24, 2009, 11:42 GMT

    Cricket is not a car or some other kind of property that can be modified, Cricket is a sport. A sport that we all love. A true cricket fan will not watch just one format we watch all three of them because we love cricket. By watching all the three formats of the game we have different reasons to cheer about and watch different cricketers perform at those levels. I think the ICC should not even think about changing the ODI format because according to me its the most fun to watch format and you get to see players display their skills in limited time (T20 is too short). ODI's are the best.... Cricket is best... Lets not forget why we watch cricket....

  • Suffyan on September 23, 2009, 15:32 GMT

    FOR one-day cricket:

    I think it's expiry date has gone now. It's way too long and boring. A change is what needed. All other sports are more interesting and fun and easy to watch, is because of short time. The only format that can make Cricket global and at the same time very challenging and entertaining is Twenty20 !

    Frankly speaking who has time to sit whole day in front of TV, watching a 50 over game, which only entertains you in first 15 overs and last 5 overs, and you can easily predict who is going to win or loose before the actual finish !

  • NICK on September 23, 2009, 5:10 GMT

    Suggestions for changes to 50 over cricket:

    1. Permanent field restrictions. No powerplays. Maximum of three outfielders for the entire innings.

    2. Remove ten over limit on overs per bowler. Any player may bowl as many overs as required.

    3. As in warm-up matches for major tournaments, have 13 players per side (11 fielding, 11 batting). Forget the supersub idea. This works so much better.

    4. Relegate England. Just kidding. Or am I?

    Make 50 over cricket a different kind of game. The teams in 20 over cricket should end up containing a vastly different set of players than in ODI or test cricket. Let's make T20 the all-rounder's game.

  • Atul on September 22, 2009, 19:21 GMT

    Hi Sambit, I think Sachin's Player profile info needs a update. Please have a look at it. Thanking you

  • Raja Mutyala on September 22, 2009, 18:54 GMT

    This is what i have in mind: - It is a 40 over game - with the possibility of at most 3 innings per team. the first innnings is always a minimum of 20 overs and the other innings can be 10 or 20 overs. - The team batting first bats at least 20 overs before the other team can bat for the first time. - the batting team can decide to keep going after the first 20 or hand over batting to the second team. - Once the second team bats, it has to bat for at least 20 overs and can ask the second team to bat again. - From here on the teams can decide to take 10 over innings or finish the remaining 20 overs. Overall, the batting team has the right to decide to keep batting or hand over batting to the other team. - [Optional Rule] Each team has to inform the umpire at least 2 overs before a hand over. This can be overridden by a rule that says, handover's can be made at the 20 over, 30 over mark only.

    To make it more interesting, each team should be forced to play at least 2 innings.

  • Brian on September 19, 2009, 21:02 GMT

    Well one day cricket never did it for me anyway, but with the world changing so much with T20 we should maybe rethink the whole process of teams. The franchise system is working perfectly in the IPL and may be showing the way. possibly a T20 season should be established and only played by franchises. The rest of the year could be devoted to national teams where one day cricket can remain part of the system as really it has as much relevance to cricket as T20 and really has become a lot more entertaining over the last ten years. Who knows where the players will take it in the future.

  • Parveen Kumar Dogra on September 19, 2009, 5:21 GMT

    I dont agree with the current arguements of 40 overs ODI or two innings. If we love cricket and want to keep it safe, we must stop thinking about ODI's future. Today fully influenced by the glamour and excitment of t-20 , we are forgetting the fact that tommarrow we will start thinking and planning to make a more shorter version of entertainment than T-20s. Thats how we just for the sake of entertainment and excitment in the most shotest time period possible are heading towards killing cricket... We must think about adding something interesting and exciting in this format but be adamant for not changing its genuine form...

  • Asif Rathod on September 15, 2009, 8:36 GMT

    Just keep the format of ODIs as it is. Just have a close eye on how people are reacting towards ODI. If it's fail to fetch the spectators, than we got to stop playing ODIs. 40 overs cricket and 25 overs two times per side are rubbish.

  • G.solanki on September 14, 2009, 17:51 GMT

    V gomes is a West Indian. West Indies apart from the first 2 WCs have been useless even when they have had greats like Richards and Lara. How can he call theatest player like Tendulkar selfish?

    However 60 and 40 innings a side has been tested and does not work as. 50 overs a side has beeen played as the norm for a number of years and all the records and statistics are based on this.

    If the format is changed are we start with new records and statistics?

  • mik on September 12, 2009, 3:07 GMT

    I think this opinion is flawed. more matches allow more match practice and more spectators getting to the action. if the games are full why stop them? i think what is killing odis is the fact major teams are restricting thier series' with the minnows. it's almost segregation.

  • V. Gomes on September 9, 2009, 8:17 GMT

    When you take Sachin’s records (most games played by any cricketer + most runs scored + most number of losses by a cricketer + zero world cups), all these records does not make him the greatest cricketer,.. it might make him the most selfish cricketer of all time. India won a World Cup (WC) before him and may win a WC after he retires. But during his long era, India never won a WC even with the support of formidable batsmen like Ganguly, Dravid, Shewag and bowler like Kumble, Harbajan and Zaheer.

    I am a West Indian, yet I feel the best cricketer in the world is Muralidaran. Playing along side above-average batsmen and bowlers, Murali has won a WC for the smallest and one of the youngest cricket playing country in the world. Not to mention highest wickets in both ODI and Test in a very short time and less matches.

    Forget the 3 billion who are willing to cut their wrist for Sachin, but give it to Murali because of he and the 22 million population of Sri Lanka deserves it.

  • Abhyuday on September 5, 2009, 11:29 GMT

    Mr. mark levenson, please stick to the article while commenting. Don't give ridiculous reasons about why India is the worst cricketing nation ever. You are only revealing your ignorance, that's all. And as far as ODI cricket goes, a reduction in the number of overs to maybe 35 with 2 innings might be an interesting thing to try out.

  • Marko on September 4, 2009, 5:56 GMT

    The 50 over game is the pinnacle. As mentioned earlier, it combines defence and attack in a way neither of the other 2 forms is capable of. Tests and T20's are two extremes of the same game. One-day cricket is an accord between the two, where you need the broadest skill set. Here it is not enough to be as passive as the Test game demands or as gung-go as T20 does. One must adapt their play in the context of the match.

    Sambit, I think your comment about lack of meaning is more applicable to Tests and T20. Tests seem to be about preserving tradition and a few select rivalries at the expense of everything else, while T20 is mainly about the $. The real meaning is game itself, not purism or profit.

    It is a shame that cricket is being stretched in so many directions. 20 overs, 40 overs, 50 overs, 2x25 overs, 60 overs, 5 days... How many variations can we have? Wouldn't it be better to attempt to standardize the game instead of fragmenting it further?

  • Daddymac on September 4, 2009, 5:14 GMT

    Hi Guys. Daddymac's Keep It Simple proposal. All top 8 teams play each other 3 tests 5 ODI's, 3 T20s. Home and Away. Winning away generates double points. Hence 3 seperate ladders with rankings. 2 month window for IPL and for ICL. 50 Over & T20 Over World Cup every 4 years. ICC Champions Trophy every year. Champions league comprising of top 2 domestic teams from each country. In Indias case top 2 from IPL play top 2 from ICL and winner and runner up will play in champions League.

    Traditional series like Ashes, India/Pakistan, India/Australia can be played as 5 tests but only points from first 3 tests will be counted towards test championship.

    Pitches to favor bowlers and batsmen equally. Countries fined for producing crap pitches.

    Sensor bar on crease to detect No Balls. 3 Umpire Challenges per team per t20, ODI, 3 per day challenge for tests. Doosra legalized.

    Duckworth & Lewis to be revised. For example in T20s runs reduced but batsman available should be reduced also

  • Michael Gray on September 2, 2009, 22:50 GMT

    I like Terry Jones' promotion of T20 for all international sides including the affiliates. You could discard F50s, have T20 the common format for everyone and base ICC membership- no full member status. Test and first class cricket can then be considered in a separate committee only for those teams playing.

  • Sam G on September 2, 2009, 15:06 GMT

    50 Over cricket is too much, Pro40 is my personal favorite format. You can have the bish bash bosh of Twenty20, and still a little element of the recovery of an innings like in Test Cricket. The international scene should have 40 over's in an ODI, and restrict them to 3 Matches only in a series. Maybe put together an ODI League, to make matches more meaningfull, that's where International Cricket needs to take off a bit. Two Leagues, one with the Test Teams another with the Associates, to start with. 2 Teams promoted and relegated, with the top two teams of each League going to the "Finals"... Im 16, and also think that nothing should be changed in cricket, people will either love it or hate it.

  • Tomas on September 2, 2009, 13:00 GMT

    I think the big 4 are trying to bully the rest of the world to accept what they perceive the future of cricket to be. I was reading an article about a young cricketer from South Africa on www.saschoolsports.co.za and all he want to do is play limited over stuff.

  • Jon Cocks on September 2, 2009, 10:17 GMT

    I agree with Warney that the 50 over game is dead. I enjoy the 20 over game, but I think it is too short. I favour scrapping both in favour of 30 over contests, with the first ten overs being with two men out only and 3-4 over batting an dbowling powerplays. Furthermore, I would advocate seven overs maximum per bowler, meaning that only two overs would be bowled by the dibbly dobblers/reserve spinners. I would boycott India until they withdrew their greedy objections over the test Championship. But that would be assuming the ICC had a spine. Test cricket should stay the pinnacle, with limited overs cricket (30 over games) organised amongst the top ten sides on a home and away basis over a two-year period, culminating in a tight six-team World Cup final over two weeks, played like a Super Six. Every match would count, with NRR sorting out percentage.

  • REDNECK on September 2, 2009, 7:14 GMT

    its great to see the survey result being quite clear in favor of leaving ODI's as they are, even more so reading comments on this blog backing the survey result up. now if only someone in the icc would listen to what the public want and stop trying to change the game!!! i fully agree with the likes of Protea & Faizaan there are players who are cappable of playing at the highest level but not always in tests. bevan and rhodes are perfect examples of why ODI's have their own identaty that cant be found in tests or that 20 over joke! @Sheethal Gunjal yes india can say they won the series in australia and elsewhere but wheres your world cup? and i dont mean that trophy you picked up beating pakistan in south africa i mean the one that had bangedesh knock you out before the group stage???? 83 is getting to be a long time ago???

  • Mark Levenson on September 2, 2009, 7:09 GMT

    @Shithal Gunjal, Satyajit, Sankar and Shafi

    Hahaha you Indians are so delusional. Best team in the world? Oh please! Try 5th best team in world. Beacuse that's where India are at right now. You guys talk and talk and hype up your team but when they come to an important tournament look what happens - 07 World Cup - first round exit, 09 Twenty20 - first round exit. And let's see that happen again at the Champions Trophy. Heh and you muppets have the audacity to claim "number 1 ODI team yaar" hahaha.

    As for Sambit being a good journo, that statement is even more hilarious than the one about india being number 1.

  • Satyajit on September 2, 2009, 7:03 GMT

    @faisal, I am not saying Pakistan's didn't deserve the T20 title. They completely deserved it and that is my whole point about T20. Pakistan is currently not in top4 or even top5 cricket team (if you include all formats) yet managed to win the cup. T20 cann't decide who currently is the best team in the world. To be frank I don't think too highly about India's win of 2007 T20 cup. It was a good win, a young team playing instinctively for a fortnight! But that didn't make them the best team in the world. Aus was the best team even at that time (they beat India in India immediately after that). That's why a 50 over WC remains important. Though some people are talking about test champinship, I am yet to see a realistic schedule for it. Also, breaking ODI to two innings 20 over is a crazy idea. You would end up playing too many T20s!

  • R Sivasubramaniam on September 2, 2009, 5:43 GMT

    1. Reduce the number of 50 over matches to 5 at the maximum. 2. Play it as two 25-over innings with a new ball at the start of each innings - after all we are changing the ball after 34 overs now. This will also nullify the effect of the toss in day-night matches, because both teams will have to bat at night as well as in the day, 3. NO need to change the other rules - a bowler should be allowed to bowl his max 10 overs as the side wants it - it could be 7 in the first innings and 3 in the second. 4 The second innings to be a continuation of the first

  • shriram on September 2, 2009, 3:46 GMT

    40-ovr format is not the replacement for 50ovr format.You wil neither get the excitement of 20 ovr nor the entertainment of 50ovr.

  • Sameer on September 2, 2009, 2:31 GMT

    reduce the amount of odis...

    what is the use of a 7 match odi series between two countries??? it is dead cricket boring as hell.

    50 OVER game is amazing if it is played the right way,,,, which means more bowler friendly pitches so that we get to see some even contests.

    people who are suggesting 2 innings of 25 each are probably in love with baseball.... we do not want that in cricket. cricket is cricket, dont make it baseball.

    50 over game is perfect, the field restrictions really make the game interesting.

    50 over format is a classic format which tests a batsmen's patience and ability to build an innings and yet attack unlike testcricket where you focus on defending and leaving. 50 cricket is about survival and attack which makes it unique. this is not the case in 20 20 or test cricket. dont scrap of 50 50 cricket it is my love.

  • simon on September 2, 2009, 0:57 GMT

    I think 2 innings inside a 40 over format is the way to go, one of the most important elements in baseball is the number of innings this enable spectators and players to compare the progress of their team with the other... 9 times.. this number of innings is far to high for cricket but 2 is prefect, but in the 40 over 2 innings split you still only have available 10 wickets. there for as a team you are able to assess your performance at the half way point. eg. team A 104-2 (1st split) Team B 125-4 (1st split) team B lead 1st split by 21 runs. as you can see how the half way point in the game has a whole new meaning, and create the interest with spectators. furthermore the not out batsmen from the 1st split have to return to the crease at the 2nd split, and bowlers/capt are given a chance to re-asssess their strategy. bring on 2 innings i say.

  • Andrew on September 1, 2009, 23:57 GMT

    Play them less often. I think ODI is a good product but there are just far to many being played. It seems normal now to have a 7 match ODI series. I think 3 is ideal, 5 would be ok but pushing it. After the same teams play each other 3-4 times everyone starts to get a bit over it. This would also help in other areas. Cricketers would get a break and there is a possibility that so many days would be free that you could start looking at a window for the IPL. I am not a fan of it but if it is going to continue than there should be a window.

  • Protea on September 1, 2009, 20:24 GMT

    Why can't we have all 3 formats. Just in moderation (and on balanced pitches). I like all three formats (and I am probably not alone on this). I appreciate that some people may not like one or the other and thats not a bad thing. But each of them has something different to offer. I have no doubt that T20 cricket will improve some aspects of cricket (boundary fielding comes to mind), just like ODIs helped improve fielding in general. If we get rid of ODIs we are losing a subset of skills. Case in point: Michael Bevan. Bevan was an expert in exploiting gaps in the field for 1's and 2's and timing the finish to perfection. We all (probably) agree that he was an exceptional cricketer. But, he wasn't much of a test player. And i'm not sure he would be appreciated in T20. Don't get me wrong, i'm sure he would have adapted his game accordingly. But some of the skills that he (and players like Jonty Rhodes among others) introduced us to would be lost to us if we get rid of ODIs.

  • Vignesh Shenoy on September 1, 2009, 19:44 GMT

    One-day cricket should not be scrapped,but only reduced and also revamped,may be 10 matches per team in a year would be ideal.And it would be great if its played on surfaces that provide equal assistance to both batsmen and bowlers.Only then the credibility of a player can be judged in ODI's,as u need to change gears from 1st to top n viceversa if the contest between bat and the ball is equally matched. Because you cannnot expect a batsman who scores 20 balls 60 to play out a whole day in tests but if he can play 70 balls and score 80 in ODI then he can be considered for the long format. Same is true with bowlers. I conclude saying that ODI should be a bridge between T20 and test format.

  • Srinivas on September 1, 2009, 18:01 GMT

    A great option would be to convert the 50 over format to a 20-20 test match i.e 2 innings per team in a day. That will lead to more competitive matches.

  • Anonymous on September 1, 2009, 17:07 GMT

    im not in favour of scrapping ODIs completely but reduce it to 40ovr ODi and reduce no. of ODis played(and tests too)..some yrs r ODIs heavy(2007) and some r tests heavy(2008)..ind played 15tests in 2008 and 33ODIs in 2007(excluding wc2007 matches..imagine ind qualified for super8s in wc and end up playing 40+ ODIs in the yr) whereas t20 being shortest format is played too less internationally..12tests,25ODIs and 15t20s shud be max for a country to play in a calender yr(excluding icc events like world cups,champs trophy)..this will give good balance of all forms in international cricket+ ipl window will also be created..ODIs cant be replaced with t20s..ODis r more skillfull and have their own charm.things like 100s and five-for r very rare in t20 + ODI wc is still the biggest cricket carnival..a test championship is not viable coz of its length but ODi wc can be finishedd in just 30 35days and a t20wc in 15 20days..

  • Prateek on September 1, 2009, 16:32 GMT

    I always held the view that ODIs will be loved again if we don't play so many. I would not reduce overs but play far less of them. Regarding 2 innings of 25 overs or 20 overs, I don't mind it getting tried out at domestic level but I am unsure if it's a good idea. 50 overs give you something in between tests and T20s. Like someone can build a longer innings which is not possible in 20 overs and bowlers have at least something to work with. With 2 innings of 25/20 overs it will be same as playing 2 T20s - batsman will try to hit every ball and bowlers will not be able to experiment much at all. To me ideal scenario is when each form of the game gives you something unique.

  • Apocrypto on September 1, 2009, 15:47 GMT

    I think the best way forward is to have a test championsip seperately which includes all the ashes and Ind vs Pak series and they could be played 5 per series and the others it's upto the respective borads with a minimum of 3 matches. And ODI's and T20 should be played 3 each. Nothing more or less and ODI WC once every 4 years and T20 once every 2 years. This would be a healthy calender and can satisfy all the viewers effectively.

  • paulusAmstelveen on September 1, 2009, 15:13 GMT

    If India had won this years T20 WC as well, to hell with ODI's the ICC would be pressurized to replace 50 overs with T20,,but as it is, they'd keep it as long as India keep doing well in it.

  • S. Sheikh on September 1, 2009, 14:26 GMT

    Increased 50 overs to 60 overs, reduce number of matches increase test matches if the series is not decided make the last test match of 6 das duration. Completly eliminate the 20 overs format it eventualy become to 10 overs and thaen 5 overs game rather play gullie danda: this is absolutely no cricket it will kill this gentleman's game for ever one can see the sign posted all over every thing is blady money.

  • Karan Singh on September 1, 2009, 13:28 GMT

    I don't know about others but i can speak for myself. I have been watching cricket since 1990 and it surely has undergone many changes since then. It does not have the charm of the 90's or even of 6-7 yrs back. The influx of money and global exposure, with cricket playing communities like us spread all over the world has meant that the game take on a new modern face. And when T20 started out, people in India hated it. I too was very sceptical to watch the IPL. But by the end of it, i did come to appreciate the different skills required in this format and it was not bad at all. And then something crazy happened. I could not sit through an entire ODI match anymore unless it involved ind-pak or aus maybe. For ODI's to survive well, future tours instead of being 3 tests + 5-7 odi's + 1 T20 should look like 3-5 tests + 3 odi's + 2-3 T20's. They need to be planned well and tri-series' should happen more often but try reducing the total amount of cricket played(excluding tests).

  • Hari on September 1, 2009, 12:50 GMT

    One day cricket should be played less frequently. When more and more countries turns into cricket [that's the idea isnt it?] how are they going to be included in the FTP? So if 10 more countries become test playing nations then India would be playing Australia once in 8 years??? We have to understand that very few new teams would be interested in playing the 5 day game. First they have to enter via 20-20 and then slowly integrate into test matches; ie if they want to. Regarding ODI's I don't know if 40 over games with two innings would be good or not...let's try it anyway. But the ODIs are the most boring version currently when compare to the other two. We must reduce its numbers drastically. Maybe for commercial reasons we should look to start more professional leagues like IPL in every [most] Test playing nations. That would certainly help the associate members also. ODIs should be reduced as much as possible. So it must be Test cricket and these professional 20-20 leagues.

  • PK on September 1, 2009, 12:23 GMT

    Agree with Sambit and others - keep 50 over matches and reduce the number of games significantly. Also, make it more equitable between bat and ball. Some of the most exciting matches have been ones with small scores defended to the hilt. Having said all that, nothing like test match cricket!

  • Sankar on September 1, 2009, 11:48 GMT

    @Mark Dude, get a life! I can take India bashing, but with some reasoning. You are just spewing vitriol. Go, find a different place to channel your frustrations. As far as this topic is concerned, I would be very happy to see far fewer ODIs. Looks like most of the comments agree with it as well.

  • Terry Jones on September 1, 2009, 11:43 GMT

    I agree with Sambit Bal that matches need to be in context. There main points that need to be fixed are: * 2 or 4 year competition that includes all forms of the game. * Different tiers to give disadvantaged teams opportunity by winning of promotion, and weaker teams demotion to give them easier matches. * The relegation system designed to allow a country to move from non-Cricket, to Affiliate, to Associate, to full, to top tier within 10 years if winning all games. * 3 forms of cricket ... small (20 overs), medium (between 20 & 450 overs) and large (450 overs ie: tests). * Focus of cricket in each level: ** Affiliate: T20's with some ODI's. ** Associate: ODI's with many T20's & some 4days. ** Full: Tests with many ODI's and some T20's.

    Afganistan is an example of an AFFILIATE team who in 2 years has won regional affiliate comp, won Division 5,4,3 and 5th in Division 1. Shows how relegation can inspire to do well.

    Question is though for all associate countries, why the glass ceiling?

  • Shafi on September 1, 2009, 11:41 GMT

    I dont get guys like Mark, get a life dude the discussion is about T20's and the relevance of ODI's. Why use this forum to sling mud at the indians, what makes it worse India is probably one of the best ODI teams going around at the moment. On another note, totally looking forward to the tri series here in cmb and hoping we can extract some revenge from the indians for the last series defeat :-)

  • Satyajit on September 1, 2009, 11:25 GMT

    @Mark Levenson I am surprised at your bitter attack on Sambit. He isn't one of the jingoistic journalists around, he appears to be a rather level headed person. It's one thing feeling disfavorably about one nation (in your case India) and another to make a personal attack on a person. Sambit has thrown up a genuine question on contemporary cricket and if you are not interested in the topic, please stay away from it. Sheethal Gunjal has already replied to remove your ignorance on India's standing in limited over cricket.

  • faisal on September 1, 2009, 11:14 GMT

    I think,Prashant has given a very interesting set of rules,see,that's what I am asking for,a new thing.Trust me,try it out,people gonna' love this.And to satyajit,I am from bangladesh and the only thing I like about pakistan is the passion of afridi and akter,but still you just can say a weaker pakistan team won the title.The way they beated SA and Srilanka were amazing.They definately deserved that title.

  • Faizaan on September 1, 2009, 10:38 GMT

    Let me ask you this, is any form of cricket where players like Tendulkar and McGrath have very little value a creditble format? T-20 is an absolute joke! Cricket is a game of patience, bowlers need time to plan batsmen out and batsmen need time to build an innings. T-20 is simply not cricket and players like David Warner, who is no more than an average club cricketer gets the exposure that should be reserved for the Laras and Tendulkars of this world. Keep cricket as it is, improve the quality of pitches and the crowds will come, as they have for well over a century.

  • Sheethal Gunjal on September 1, 2009, 10:31 GMT

    @Mark Levenson I don't know wheather u watch cricket or not. Right now, INDIA r the best ODI team in the WORLD & also according to ICC ranking INDIA r 1 point behind SA. INDIA has beaten AUS in AUS, SRI in SRI(2 times) which i don't think other team has done that, NZ in NZ, PAK in PAK(2 times). INDIA needs beat SA in SA in 2010. Now, Champions Trophy is the biggest test for INDIA. I think u r one of the biggest hypocrite i've seen on cricinfo site.

  • Gerard on September 1, 2009, 9:26 GMT

    Although the benefits of playing fewer ODI matches are self evident, reducing the number of overs defies all logic. That would only reduce the number of strategic options available and make games more predictable. ODIs are boring for two reasons:

    1) Conditions stacked ridiculously in batsmen's favour 2) Predictable strategies mean that very few games stand out

    The ICC has made it abundantly clear that they have zero interest in solving problem 1, so let's look at problem 2. Why not INCREASE the number of overs to 60? Gives captains more scope for flexible strategies, frontline bowlers get more overs (each bowler allowed 12) to bowl out the opposition, provides a disincentive for mindless slogging currently prevalent and demands a higher level of skill and concentration. Significantly, the longer game time would give sponsors the chance to cram in even more advertising, so even the administrators would be happy.

  • Prashant on September 1, 2009, 9:21 GMT

    A team may decide to inject new players based on its situation. Suppose team A is tottering at 50/4 in the first innings because of early morning swing etc then it can declare the 1st innings. Bowl 25 overs with the same team and in the 2nd innings (depending upon how well they have bowled )might decide to inject 2 batsmen and a bowler for a struggling bowler. The not out batsmen can be replaced so we can have a dogged player in the 1st innings and he can be replaced by a hitter in the 2nd. Add the existing powerplays here and I guess ODI's would become interesting (as well as confusing in the beginning). This would lead to a lot of strategising and might result in close matches/interesting matches

  • Prashant on September 1, 2009, 9:15 GMT

    I think ODI's need to be preserved. One way of doing is to have lesser number of matches. I agree that there shouldn't be more than 5 games per bilateral series. Moreover new innovations are required as we have seen that batting powerplays have certainly made the game more interesting. Lifeless pitches in test matches too ruin the contest so it can't be said that ODI's become boring due to that. We can't have the game split into 2 innings each as that would become a sort of 20-20. If we are to preserve it then this isn't the way to do I suppose. We should have 2 innings of 25 overs each but the no of wickets should be limited to 10 only(as currently). For the first block of 25-25 overs the teams will name 11 players. 25 overs batting and bowling must be done with these 11. After this a team may replace 2 or 3 of its players depending upon the match situation but the swapped person must not have lost his wkt in the previous 25 overs of batting.(because its a batsman's game so.continue.

  • Satyajit on September 1, 2009, 9:14 GMT

    I would agree to Sambit. Keep it as 50 overs but have less number of ODIs. There is no point in having a 7 match ODI series. Bialateral ODI series could be three matches (five in rare cases). I am not in favor of scrapping the format. It has it's own merit; there is more skill/temperament involved than T20. It's also imp to have the 50 over world cup as Test WC seems a little difficult to conduct whereas World T20 doesn't really smell like a WC (a weak Pakistan team winning it this time). For many young players 50 over format becomes stepping stone towards Test matches at international level. Try to have more test matches at the cost of ODIs not international T20.

  • Amir on September 1, 2009, 9:11 GMT

    I agree with Shafi. Perhaps Cricinfo should ask readers whether ODIs should be replaced with T20's? I would have picked that option if it was available, and that after all is the real issue here.

  • Mark Levenson on September 1, 2009, 8:43 GMT

    I don't know Sambit, how about if India stop being so cr@p at ODIs we keep them and play much more of them but if they continue perform poorly like they currently do we'll should just scrap them all and just play Twenty20. Oh but wait India at cr@p at that too now no? So let's invent something like five5 that India be good at and have an IPL World five5. Heh Sambit you really do crack me up.

  • faisal on September 1, 2009, 8:42 GMT

    A few years back,ODI brings out the true allegiance of any supporter as it was the form of game where result was obvious.But T20 has emerged at a great pace and win people's heart.There is no denying fact that between 20-40 over,the ODI game dried up.I don't know why people are not supporting the idea of two 20 over-innings.Come on!it's like watching a match full of t20 excitement along with a bit of gourmat 'test' flavour.At first people didn't think t20 will last long,look at it now!As a supporter we love new things.At least give it a try,but I don't know about world cup because still it is the biggest tournament.Winning the world cup is a cricketer's ultimate dream.So keep that as it is.

  • Nishan on September 1, 2009, 7:47 GMT

    Reduce the number of ODI's. There is way too much cricket and meaningless ODI series that lead to nothing but yet another trophy nobody remembers a month later. Reducing them to 40 overs wont change much and on the long run neither will T20's if they are given a case of overkill. As a spectator I want to look forward to a game or series that has significance, not 100+ ODI's or T20's where you cant even remember the results. And finally give better pitches for all forms of cricket where both batsmen and bowlers have an equal chance. Personally, seeing the stumps flattened is far more exciting than seeing 25 sixes in one game!

  • Shafi on September 1, 2009, 7:26 GMT

    I voted for leaving ODI's as it is, cos mucking around with 40 overs etc is just not going to make a difference. If you had an option on the poll that said replace ODI's with T20, it would have been interesting to see how many would have voted. So i am basically for the idea of having only T20's and test cricket. ODI's are just outdated and have nothing to offer now that T20 is here.

  • Ashwath on September 1, 2009, 7:00 GMT

    I think the number of ODI s should be reduced. It is frustrating to watch more than a 5 match series in ODIs. While it is also frustrating to watch anything else than a 3 match test series. Unfortunately our cash rich board has single handedly opposed the idea of a World Test Championship which im sure would have been a step forward and inproved the quality of cricket as most countries will prepare result oriented wickets.

  • Ashok Sridharan on September 1, 2009, 6:51 GMT

    My take on 50-over cricket is simple: just finish it off. I agree with Warne that the idea is way past its sell-by date. I don't see how eight hours of leather chasing on lifeless wickets that produce mountains of runs and mostly one-sided games can be even remotely described as 'entertainment'. Let's cut out the meaningless ODIs and have few more tests + better pitches.

    The way ahead as I see it is: Test cricket at the international level, interspersed with T20 games- mostly at the club level (not unlike football).

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Ashok Sridharan on September 1, 2009, 6:51 GMT

    My take on 50-over cricket is simple: just finish it off. I agree with Warne that the idea is way past its sell-by date. I don't see how eight hours of leather chasing on lifeless wickets that produce mountains of runs and mostly one-sided games can be even remotely described as 'entertainment'. Let's cut out the meaningless ODIs and have few more tests + better pitches.

    The way ahead as I see it is: Test cricket at the international level, interspersed with T20 games- mostly at the club level (not unlike football).

  • Ashwath on September 1, 2009, 7:00 GMT

    I think the number of ODI s should be reduced. It is frustrating to watch more than a 5 match series in ODIs. While it is also frustrating to watch anything else than a 3 match test series. Unfortunately our cash rich board has single handedly opposed the idea of a World Test Championship which im sure would have been a step forward and inproved the quality of cricket as most countries will prepare result oriented wickets.

  • Shafi on September 1, 2009, 7:26 GMT

    I voted for leaving ODI's as it is, cos mucking around with 40 overs etc is just not going to make a difference. If you had an option on the poll that said replace ODI's with T20, it would have been interesting to see how many would have voted. So i am basically for the idea of having only T20's and test cricket. ODI's are just outdated and have nothing to offer now that T20 is here.

  • Nishan on September 1, 2009, 7:47 GMT

    Reduce the number of ODI's. There is way too much cricket and meaningless ODI series that lead to nothing but yet another trophy nobody remembers a month later. Reducing them to 40 overs wont change much and on the long run neither will T20's if they are given a case of overkill. As a spectator I want to look forward to a game or series that has significance, not 100+ ODI's or T20's where you cant even remember the results. And finally give better pitches for all forms of cricket where both batsmen and bowlers have an equal chance. Personally, seeing the stumps flattened is far more exciting than seeing 25 sixes in one game!

  • faisal on September 1, 2009, 8:42 GMT

    A few years back,ODI brings out the true allegiance of any supporter as it was the form of game where result was obvious.But T20 has emerged at a great pace and win people's heart.There is no denying fact that between 20-40 over,the ODI game dried up.I don't know why people are not supporting the idea of two 20 over-innings.Come on!it's like watching a match full of t20 excitement along with a bit of gourmat 'test' flavour.At first people didn't think t20 will last long,look at it now!As a supporter we love new things.At least give it a try,but I don't know about world cup because still it is the biggest tournament.Winning the world cup is a cricketer's ultimate dream.So keep that as it is.

  • Mark Levenson on September 1, 2009, 8:43 GMT

    I don't know Sambit, how about if India stop being so cr@p at ODIs we keep them and play much more of them but if they continue perform poorly like they currently do we'll should just scrap them all and just play Twenty20. Oh but wait India at cr@p at that too now no? So let's invent something like five5 that India be good at and have an IPL World five5. Heh Sambit you really do crack me up.

  • Amir on September 1, 2009, 9:11 GMT

    I agree with Shafi. Perhaps Cricinfo should ask readers whether ODIs should be replaced with T20's? I would have picked that option if it was available, and that after all is the real issue here.

  • Satyajit on September 1, 2009, 9:14 GMT

    I would agree to Sambit. Keep it as 50 overs but have less number of ODIs. There is no point in having a 7 match ODI series. Bialateral ODI series could be three matches (five in rare cases). I am not in favor of scrapping the format. It has it's own merit; there is more skill/temperament involved than T20. It's also imp to have the 50 over world cup as Test WC seems a little difficult to conduct whereas World T20 doesn't really smell like a WC (a weak Pakistan team winning it this time). For many young players 50 over format becomes stepping stone towards Test matches at international level. Try to have more test matches at the cost of ODIs not international T20.

  • Prashant on September 1, 2009, 9:15 GMT

    I think ODI's need to be preserved. One way of doing is to have lesser number of matches. I agree that there shouldn't be more than 5 games per bilateral series. Moreover new innovations are required as we have seen that batting powerplays have certainly made the game more interesting. Lifeless pitches in test matches too ruin the contest so it can't be said that ODI's become boring due to that. We can't have the game split into 2 innings each as that would become a sort of 20-20. If we are to preserve it then this isn't the way to do I suppose. We should have 2 innings of 25 overs each but the no of wickets should be limited to 10 only(as currently). For the first block of 25-25 overs the teams will name 11 players. 25 overs batting and bowling must be done with these 11. After this a team may replace 2 or 3 of its players depending upon the match situation but the swapped person must not have lost his wkt in the previous 25 overs of batting.(because its a batsman's game so.continue.

  • Prashant on September 1, 2009, 9:21 GMT

    A team may decide to inject new players based on its situation. Suppose team A is tottering at 50/4 in the first innings because of early morning swing etc then it can declare the 1st innings. Bowl 25 overs with the same team and in the 2nd innings (depending upon how well they have bowled )might decide to inject 2 batsmen and a bowler for a struggling bowler. The not out batsmen can be replaced so we can have a dogged player in the 1st innings and he can be replaced by a hitter in the 2nd. Add the existing powerplays here and I guess ODI's would become interesting (as well as confusing in the beginning). This would lead to a lot of strategising and might result in close matches/interesting matches